part 1. Unknown original artists and scientists are not allowed in the encyclopaedias


"Fails all tests of notability" + "Vanity article apparently created by the artist himself" + "no reliable sources" + "The ones provided in the article do not appear to meet the 'reliable' criterion" = unknown artists and scientists are not allowed in the encyclopaedias.

To be notable by the encyclopaedias you need to have "sufficient attention in the world-at-large." Isolated researches and works, even if it could have historical or human repercussions, are not allowed in the encyclopaedias. Does Internet encyclopaedias represent the mainstream of the Internet knowledge? We hope not. We have serious questions about encyclopaedia's contribution of planetary knowledge by deletion unknown personalities articles. Most of the artists in the past which became famous today were not notable during their lives. In opposite of today’s tendency to consider new major artists and scientists, people well media covered – not for their personal work but for their ability to communicate - to be recognizable by the encyclopaedias.

In case of the Internet encyclopaedia has the ambition to be a sum of humanity knowledge on the Internet, it has to be careful with its criteria of publication. We understand that encyclopaedia wants to publish mainstream thought, but why not all thoughts, included the underground, the unknown ones? Internet architecture is a huge opportunity for humankind knowledge: it should have not a dominant community[1]. We have to be careful: directed knowledge becomes propaganda and works against our altruistic knowledge: but what knowledge you want to propagate and for what?

Artist is not a job if your name as trademark is not recognized by your community: your work does not exist (even if it exists) and you are away from mass media. But honest artists with their works cannot be agree with this mainstream ideology: it is against the evolution of art. – We forget too often that art is the food of our intelligence -. The purpose of an honest artist or a scientist, who does not lie to her/himself, is to provoke the unknown to go further: in the knowledge of his/her art, beyond humankind limits. This is exactly the opposite of the dominant communities now: in serious music community there is a domination of academic style since the eighties, no other approach are allowed. From time immemorial isolated personalities produced original works who are not in the mainstream mass media process of recognition, but tendency-free works are always alive somewhere.

Somebody said that everybody will be allowed to be famous 15 minutes on television. This is what happened nowadays even more on the Internet. The thirst of recognition is huge by anonymous people especially excited by the free access media Internet. The History shows that the regression of intelligence in art is due to a majority of followers who do not take a risk to be placed in an isolated situation to create something that nobody understand. The fear of being alone is too strong, this path is taken just by "crazy" considered unrecognisable artists or scientists. Being famous these days became against original art and science work purpose. Allowing too much time for self communication give you not enough time for honest creation.

Most of the encyclopaedia’s artists articles emphases themselves: personal prizes, recognitions, famous institutions, etc. But tell us: What contribution it gives to encyclopaedic knowledge? In this case we have to question: what is the encyclopaedic knowledge? Few today’s artists during all their career avoid all form of prizes, because it is against their approach of researcher-artist who queries of our humankind knowledge. We do not believe that the majority of human followers can support the multiplicity of knowledge: because there is always a common personal interest to follow: most of people are working to get prizes and wealth, not to increase the human knowledge without interest. We find interest in tendencies not in multiplicities which is hard to control. This one way system generate frustrated greedy people and without frustrated greedy people, lot of them would disappear from excessive media coverage. A love lack or what?

There is many prizes abuse in arts, and sciences, which their purpose is more to sell the product and the ideology to the masses than to increase the knowledge of people. This is the easiest way to buy this ideology: "this is the best, buy it" to unknowledgable people. Prizes give personal tendencies and never show the multiplicities of works, it is a jury's point of view: which obey to the one mainstream direction. Prizes abuse artists works putting them in competition, art is beyond entertainment of competition game because it serves our knowledge. Prizes hidden purpose is to sell keys for careers than to increase the humankind intelligence. Today’s tendency is to use art as entertainment product to sell to drown people’s intelligence: "if your art is not saleable it is not art, and do something else saleable." Art with humankind intelligence is dying.

“XXI century great artists stay unobtrusive and you need talent to discover them.”

anonymous artist of the XXI century.

[1]. Dominant communities are communities who have the power to forbid other communities the power to do. Forbidden is created by the establishment of an exclusive network constituted by functioning elements which obey in one direction.


re:actions: centrebombe [at] yahoo [dot] com
other texts
back home